- 9 - must bear the consequences of petitioners’ failure to properly file their tax returns with, or otherwise apprise respondent of, petitioners’ new address. Petitioners argue that respondent should have, but did not, mail to petitioners’ representative a copy of the various dunning letters. Failure of respondent to mail to petitioners’ representative a copy of a notice that was mailed to petitioners provides no basis to reject respondent’s collection action in this case. See Amsler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-114 (notice generally will be valid even when a copy is not mailed to a taxpayer’s representative so long as properly mailed to the taxpayer); Foster v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1982-115 (citing Houghton v. Commissioner, 48 T.C. 656, 661 (1967)). Because of petitioners’ repeated violations of the conditions of the OIC, respondent’s Appeals Office did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the notice of intent to levy. Other arguments petitioners make herein have been considered and rejected. To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be entered for respondent.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Last modified: March 27, 2008